|
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images
|
|
Blatant copyright violations or images missing source or license information may be "speedied"
If an image is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the image may be speedy deleted under criterion I9. Please tag the image with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}.
If an image is missing a source, evidence of permission, or license information, place either use:
or
on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 or criterion 11 for images.
Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{image source}} and {{image copyright}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own. It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each user. |
This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.
Instructions
Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).
To list an image on this page:
| I |
Edit the image page.
Add {{pui|log=2008 August 20}} to the image page. If the image is in use, also add {{puic|Image:Image_name.ext|log=2008 August 20}} to the caption(s).
|
| II |
Create its PUI subsection.
Follow this edit link and list the image at the bottom of that page using {{subst:pui2|image=Image_name.ext|reason=reason}} — ~~~~. (remember to exclude the Image: prefix).
|
| III |
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:idw-pui|Image:Image_name.ext}}
- Remember to replace "Image_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
|
Unlike Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of an image. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.
Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Images that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well.
Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.
An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.
Holding cell
- These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.
New listings
August 7
Apparently a screenshot of a copyrighted television show, meaning that the uploader has no right to release the image into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- nope, you're wrong, I took it myself at the show. --Eckre (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's weird, since it's about the same angle, aspect ratio, and image quality as the video that's posted here: http://www.aesmith.org/?page_id=26. And they generally don't like people taking photographs during tapings. Occam's Razor tells me this is a screencap (and I figured that's what "SC" stood for). --Mosmof (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I see clear evidence of video artefacts. Asenine 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It also seems extremely unlikely that the producers of the show would allow cameras in the taping. --Ipoellet (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted websites are not eligible to be released under CC licenses or the GFDL. In any event, IE is copyrighted. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Summary conflicts with release into public domain. Not clear if the uploader is the owner of the copyright or original image. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the uploader doesn't own this. Also it should be deleted under WP:CSD#I9 as a copyright violation. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Although the site where the uploader found this pic is licensed CC-BY, the disclaimer reads, "Images and logos included in this site are the copyright of their respective owners", which implies the site does not claim ownership of images used there. Given the age of the photo, it's highly improbable that the site owns copyright or that it would be licensed under Creative Commons. Mosmof (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Album cover art claimed ownership by uploader Q T C 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Fanart based on a character copyrighted by Sega. — Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is actually not listed as being free. I am removing it from the userpage, leaving a comment on his talk and adding an orphan notice to the image. Asenine 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the history, it appears you changed the license. Please do not do this whilst starting a PUI, I am reverting the license. Asenine 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and finally, in general fanart not depicting a copyrighted character is ok. You state that it is 'based on' a copyrighted character, which is ok. It would only not be fine if it was a derivative. Asenine 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- It looks exactly like the characters Sonic the Hedgehog or Shadow the Hedgehog. If Sega were to file a copyright violation suit, they would definitely win. They would of course never bother doing it, but the point is that this image goes against the Wikipedia policies. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This Sonic character does not exist. I made this at a flash type thing on Deviant Art. This is just what I would want to look like if I were a Sonic character. So there is no copyright and I released to the public domain sence I made it myself (didn't make the flash) and I made it at a flash. Unknown the Hedgehog 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly render of Starfox main character which is most definately under Copyright Q T C 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot of a website. OsamaK 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Cannot be self-licensed; Doesn't look very old; As written: "photographer is unknown". OsamaK 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The photo dates from the 1970's. User:Tartessos75 8 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot from Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. OsamaK 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
there is nothing on the source website to indicate that this image is free of copyright restrictions, or that it's reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission, as claimed on the image description page - Wikipedia is not mentioned on the source. Rossrs (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've been in contact with the uploader by email; he has an OTRS ticket (2008010610005646) that covers the scan, but not (necessarily) the photo on the magazine cover. I'm working with him on this. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For the {{PD-UK}} license to be vaild, the photographer has to have been dead for 70 years, but the photograph was taken in 1952. Unlikely that the photographer was dead when he took the photo. Also, it appears the source site does not own the copyrights to the images it uses, based on the disclaimer that reads, "Images and logos included in this site are the copyright of their respective owners" Mosmof (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Same as above, the photographer is not old enough to be in PD in the UK Mosmof (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader is not owner of copyright as stated, or else he would have known his own name, which is 'Ye Rin Mok', not 'Yerin Mok'. No permission asserted. Asenine 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
While I have no reason to doubt that the overlay is self made, I suspect that the underlying image is copyrighted by one of the Google Earth variants Kevin (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is elf made and the underlying map of Egypt comes from public domain (non-copyrighted) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please let me know if you have any more questions. --Lanternix (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No evidence for the GFDL license, or that the cited source for the image, a fansite, owns the copyright to the image. Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Same issue as above. Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Same issue as above. Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
August 8
Apparently a crop of www.indianetzone.com/6/images/Shankar-Mahadevan_2993.jpg, (blocked by spam filter) but there is no indication that that image is free. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Photos of a Video cover or set are still non-free, same as a scan -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source of image has relased same as GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Was also uploaded as 'Wikipedia has permission to use', but I have deleted the other image under I1/I3. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete under WP:CSD#I9, copyright violation. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source has releaed image as GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indicication source has relased as GFDL- Google Images cache not WP:RS Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source has releaed image as GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication of GFDL relase on source site - User has a history of uploadign images with dubious GFDL claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete under WP:CSD#I9, copyright violation. The uploader doesn't have the best history with images. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Watermarked - No indication source site releases under GFDL- user has a histoy of dubious GFDL claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Image cache doesn't imply GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Cache != GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Image cache != GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Image cache!= GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source listed relases as GFDL - User has a history of dubious GFDL claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Image cache!= GFDL , user has histroy of dubious claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indcation source releases as GFDL - User has history of dubious claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source releases As GFDL - user has history of dubious claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source releases as GFDL- User has hsitory of dubious claims Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlikley to be PD_Self looks like poster design Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this is a copyright violation, I believe the user thought that when you edit an image and then upload it, it isn't a copyright violation, but it is. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks to be a publicity shot. Low resolution, no meta-data- implies that this may have been taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this is a copyright violaton, I've got one link here [1] but the image here is smaller but this is still a copyvio. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE i am rather impressed with the speed at which wikipedia moves with regards copyrighted images, suffice to say - permission is granted. i don't know what other assurances you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack834834834 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well then this image should have been given to OTRS and had a OTRS ticket tag on it. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- apologies, i am not particularly well versed in these tags etc, it can be slightly confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack834834834 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- thanks so much for informing me of what i needed to do in order to keep the picture up!! you've been oh so helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack834834834 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Happy to help you! If there are any questions I can try help you out. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This image was not created by the uploader, merely scanned. Therefore, they have no right to release it under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a variety of images all from what seem to be very different sources, (some documents, some photos, some scans- all from various different dates and cameras) pertinent to the history of a school. I suspect that the user just took various pictures from the school archives and uploaded them as their own work. I asked them about it, but they did not respond, and stopped uploading. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted game. Uploader has no right to release this image into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, he has also uploaded several other in-game screenshots that he erroneously claims as copyrighted to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.2.230 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader is not copyright holder - summary states sqn member took photo - no evidence of public domain release. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as No permission. Uploader notified. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from Ayers' website: [2]. Uploader claims "personal photograph, which seems dubious. ZimZalaBim talk 19:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The source website seems to be all rights reserved, and this looks like an Apple publicity photo, which I doubt are released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation, cnet doesn't release all the rights to this image, here is the image link [3]. --Kanonkas : Talk 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If the uploader owns the photo/image then they should have a high res image but the image used seems to be from a forum. Bidgee (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot from What What (In the Butt). OsamaK 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No metadata, uploaded by a new user, looks a screenshot. OsamaK 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
License information uses a red-linked template (Template:Free games screenshot). However, even if the template was valid this is apparently a screenshot of a PSP which is covered by copyright and not free. AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use applies, right? 129.42.208.182 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but reduce resolution - I'm pretty sure that fair use applies as it does for other screenshots of operating systems, like Image:Windows Aero.png. However, the resolution should be reduced to a fraction of what it is now and re-uploaded in order to meet the fair use criteria. --Voidxor (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Supposedly made for use on Wikipedia based on an image from www.dug.edu, however I find nothing there about it beeing Public domain, only a common "© 2003-2008 Duquesne University" notice on the site footer. Sherool (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as No Permission; uploader notified --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
August 9
Seems dubious, and the uploader has a long history of questionable uploads (check talkpage history). Happy‑melon 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The uploader asserts that the copyright holder has released this into the public domain, however the website the image was sourced from has no evidence of such a license. Kevin (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Changed tag to No permission --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Watermark says that all rights are reserved and I'm not seeing anything at the source, though I do hate MySpace. Uploader has a history of bad sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. The uploader doesn't own this and the license is wrong "This work of art is distributed under the Free Art license." which applies to free art, and not copyrighted images like this. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User has a history of uploading bad files. Watermark says all rights reserved, I'm not seeing anything about the FAL at the source. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Conidering that the phrase "Copyrighted all rights reserved" appears in plain and readable english on the image I would be incline to say this is here under the wrong liscence. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the license is wrong, as the image isn't "Free Art". Clearly copyrighted so delete this as a copyright violation. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not seeing anything about FAL at the source. User has a history of bad uploads and this was uploaded with other suspect images. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt a publicity photo for a modern film is PD. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedied as blatant copyvio --Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a professional, posed image. Not a user-created PD image. Cannot find the source on the web. Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete very low res for such an image, I doubt this is the uploaders work so it looks like this is a copyright violation. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks to be a screenshot of a video game (perhaps a Sonic game of some sort) and so the uploader is unlikely to own the rights to the picture. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the uploader doesn't own this, yep it looks like to be some Sonic game. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a TV screenshot. Possibly uploaded in good faith under the assumption that as they had taken the screenshot, they had the right to release it. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete tv screenshot, copyrighted. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No meta-data, posed, web resolution, no explicit source info, user has a history of uploading suspect images. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete low res for such an image, at least such images should be in higher res. Usually such images are web images found on the net, and then uploaded here as "own work". Likely copyright violation. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparent image credits across the bottom. User has uploaded a series of suspect images depicting the same subject claiming them their own work. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC) hi, this image can be found on the website www.frescomaster.eu under "ueber Uns" and then "Presse". I sent the company an e-mail 'office@frescomaster.eu' to ask permission. i recieved a reply from 'webmaster@frescomaster.eu' that I may do so, with some press material attached (as the website is made in flash and I can not save the image As). if you would like further proof, please let me know how- otherwise you could perhaps contact frescomaster.eu. Thank you, --Mauriceamadeus (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No evidence is provided showing that this is public domain or GFDL. This is a reasonably modern portrait, it may still be under copyright. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a large number of suspect images of conjoined twins. Unlikely to own the copyright to them- if I am not mistaken, images of conjoined twins are notoriously difficult to come by. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a large number of suspect images of conjoined twins. Unlikely to own the copyright to them- if I am not mistaken, images of conjoined twins are notoriously difficult to come by. This one looks like a screenshot and may have a logo in the bottom right. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a large number of suspect images of conjoined twins. Unlikely to own the copyright to them- if I am not mistaken, images of conjoined twins are notoriously difficult to come by. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is entierly my own work.--User:Islaammaged126 18:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Derivative work. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Baring the fact that the image is horribly put together, the statement from the user who uploaded the image states that she copied and pasted the image into paint and created a "photoshopped" image. Qb | your 2 cents 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't know enough about that policy,sorry,and may I ask Qb what is horrible about the picture?User:Islaammaged126 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
User has uploaded a large number of suspect images of conjoined twins. Unlikely to own the copyright to them- if I am not mistaken, images of conjoined twins are notoriously difficult to come by. This is a collage of many stolen images. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per this. User states that she did not take the picture. Qb | your 2 cents 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Photo is dated 1880, which means that it is unlikely the person the uploader contacted had the right to release the rights to the image. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication of source release as PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as no permission, uploader notified --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No indication source has relased as PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as no source, uploader notified --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims PD as the subject died in 1954, by for a UK image to be PD, the photographer has to have been dead for 70 years, and if the photographer is not known, the photograph has to be 70 years or older. Mosmof (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The image is most likely copyrighted, the CC license is invalid. Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Doesnt look copyrighted to me. ViridaeTalk 02:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - on first look, it looked to me like a close crop of a 2-D poster, but it looks like I was mistaken after looking at the Flickr user's other uploads. My apologies. --Mosmof (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
August 10
Clearly not created by uploader, who has a history of uploading copyrighted images. Corvus cornixtalk 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious copyvio of a Getty Images photo (original is here). I've marked it for super speedy deletion. --Mosmof (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded under the public domain, but there's no indication at the source that it is. It *could* have been uploaded by the creator, though, so I'd rather not speedy it. Anyone mind looking into this? — Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as no permission; uploader notified --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Tee Meng added this photo from the Beijing opening ceremony and claims |
![[1]](http://www.paulmckennaband.com/images/header.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20080710/iphone3g.jpg){kind=link}
